Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. I want to make three points at the outset: I have always supported this concept, I support this bill and I will be voting yes in this referendum. I think this concept is ultimately about providing agency to community members to make decisions about their own communities but also to make decisions about national policy which affects a group of people in a unique way. I think that is a very Liberal concept.

Effectively this bill is about putting an amendment, now, to the Australian people on our Constitution. It is not the exact form of words that I would have chosen, but I believe that the Constitution and our system of government will be better for having this amendment included. So I'll be voting for this bill, as will the bulk of my party. I believe that voting yes is the right thing to do for our country, and I think it will be a positive change for all Australians.

I have never believed that it is in the best interests of our country to defeat a referendum on reconciliation. I addressed this issue in my first speech to the Senate in 2019 and on numerous occasions over the past few years. I said at the time that it was important to build consensus. This must be a unifying project because the Australian Constitution belongs to all Australians. At the time, I established five principles which I believe would be critical to the success of any referendum. Those principles were:

Any proposal must (1) capture broad support of the Indigenous community; (2) focus on community level improvements; (3) maintain the supremacy of parliament; (4) maintain the value of equality; and (5) strengthen national unity.

I think at this stage it is clear that there are questions over principles (3) and (5), but I want to address the issues before coming to some of the detail.

The first issue is recognition. I believe in recognition because the Constitution is incomplete, and I think we should be looking at this referendum as a way to build on 1967. The process that led to 1967 was very much linked to the debates of today. There were two changes that were made in 1967. One was about the census, and the other one, which was the most substantive of the two, was to vest a new power in the Commonwealth Constitution to allow the Commonwealth laws for Indigenous people, which had previously been the preserve of the states. The intention was that this new lawmaking power, effectively a race based power, would be used for good, and it was not used heavily in its first couple of decades. It was used more later, though, and there were currently 15 different laws on the books which were made under this race power for Indigenous people. Land rights, heritage protection, corporations, education, native title, the Stolen Generations redress scheme—it's a lengthy list. We have no good system to manage these laws; when they're made, they're made without the input of the people they're made for. That's why I have always believed that the current system is fundamentally illiberal.

On the Voice: as I mentioned, I do support the Voice. I believe that the local voice has always been the central component. I formed that view by travelling extensively around New South Wales, which has the largest Indigenous community in this country, through towns like Nowra, Kempsey, Walgett, Bourke and Brewarrina. The view that I often hear expressed is that people are frustrated with the way that services are delivered in these rural and regional places. There's a sentiment that bureaucrats change and processes change, and so there's no good way to provide input to policymakers. Therefore there's a loss of continuity and a loss of traction that happens. Of course, we hear the big lie that this would be the introduction of race into the system, but the policies that are run by the states—like Aboriginal medical services, for example, which are very important policies in these towns I speak of—are race based policies. I just mentioned 15 different race based laws that we have here on the books in Canberra at a national level, so the fundamental principle at the local level that you would want to have structured and consistent input from local people on how policies are deployed I think is compelling.

At the national level, I have already listed the various laws that we make. But when we decide to amend the Native Title Act, what process do we go through to assure ourselves that the decisions we're going to make on behalf of the people who are subject to special laws are in their interests? I would say that the process we go through is very poor, and I think that we could do many worse things than get more information from the subjects of special, race based laws. There is a lot of misinformation out there. As I said, we have race based policy at the state level, which is predominant, and we have race based laws at the national level. We have a country that has had race at its heart for 250 years. To argue that this is the introduction of race today is fundamentally untrue.

Of course, though, it isn't really about race when the no advocates make this case. These laws and policies exist, not because of race but because they recognise the unique relationship that the first people of Australia have with this land, and always will have. That is about the first people; it isn't about race. I have tried to build common, or centre, ground over the last few years, and I've tried to work with colleagues in my own party and in Liberal conservative circles. I had hoped that there would have been a lot more common ground at this juncture, but I have to say that over the past 12 months very little progress has been made. But there hasn't been a process to provide for the building out of that common ground. I think we've been long on politics and short on consensus building.

So the model that we have in this bill is a detailed model. It is a bigger and more substantial change than I have argued for in the past. I always had the view that a complex model would put a referendum at risk, and I argued as much in a Sydney Institute speech back in June 2021. At the time, I argued for an amendment which read something like, 'The Commonwealth shall make provision for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to be heard by the Commonwealth regarding proposed laws and other matters with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs, and the parliament may make laws to give effect to this provision.' That was the sort of simple but empowering amendment that I thought would have the most chance of winning some more of the common ground that I think is going to be essential.

The government decided not to go for a simple amendment. We had an opportunity, finally, to review this amendment as part of the joint select committee. To cut to the chase, I made recommendations in the joint select committee report that we should add seven additional words, which were, 'and the legal effect of its representations', into the constitutional amendment. During the hearings, I exhausted this idea with people, like Anne Twomey and George Williams, who are eminent legal and constitutional scholars and professors, and they all indicated that the addition of those words would not be offensive to the concept, may provide assurance and would be worth doing.

None of this was done, none of this was adopted, for reasons which are unclear to me. But I would have thought that that would have assured people that parliamentary supremacy was going to be maintained, which is the concern that some people have. I think that was a lost opportunity. I made some remarks yesterday about the joint select committee, and I think that will be viewed, regrettably, as a missed opportunity to build some common ground, or centre ground, before we go to this referendum. I regret to say that even the people that went to the trouble of writing reports in this committee have not had a response from the government, so we simply don't know what the government's view is about those seven additional words, for example.

I would have thought that the best way to have handled this—and I made these points at the time—would have been to have established a parliamentary committee in 2022 which could have made recommendations to the parliament as a committee. Instead what we received was a government bill, a policy of the government, which, I think—I'm trying to be as generous as I can be here, but I don't believe there was any real intent when the joint select committee was set up to do its job. It was given five weeks to review a constitutional amendment and made one recommendation. I think that was a very regrettable process which has not helped us at all.

As I say, I think there has been far too much politics here, and, for reasons which are unclear to me, the government has rebuffed efforts to build consensus. It's now up to the government to convince people why they should vote yes. Perhaps the only question, really, is whether the referendum should succeed in its current form. I think the government has one last chance before we vote on this bill to improve the bill, but that is now a matter for the government. This is, obviously, a very disappointing starting point for this referendum, but I do wish the campaigners well. I hope that all sides can maintain the dignity which the Australian people would expect of them.

I'm accountable to this chamber, and I want to report that I have done my best to try and build that middle ground, or common ground, here. I've tried to address the concerns that my own political party has had. I'd hoped that the middle ground was going to be larger at this point. I have to say that it feels invisible. I support the passage of this bill, and I will help write a 'yes' case should I be asked to. That will be my substantive contribution on this issue. I am not a commentator, nor am I a professional campaigner.

If the government does proceed with this model, it is up to the government to convince the Australian people to vote yes. My vote will be for yes, and I will be encouraging other people to do the same. It is very important that people over the age of 18 enrol now to vote. Everyone's vote has the same weight. The status quo has not been good enough, and that is why this issue is so important. Unfortunately, this has been treated more like a routine political issue than a constitutional reform. Ultimately, though, the government still has time to improve this bill and to build some more common ground. I hope they do, and, for the record, I will be voting yes. My view has always been that defeating a referendum on reconciliation cannot be in the nation's interests and cannot be in the interests of Indigenous people. Thank you.